Connected/Modern Standby isn't very popular. But when used (like on the Surface line) you get the same "Instant On" like you do on an iPad or iPhone.
Mac's (with batteries) aren't ever fully off are they?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Reinstates Epic Games EU Developer Account, Paving the Way for Alternative App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
they do eventually.
but the point is Apple treat them better from a user experience viewpoint.
Windows seemed stuck in the old boot routine from the 80s for way too long.
i'm sure there were reasons. legacy stuff. they couldnt abandon all the drivers to load and check and bloat code no one was sure what it did. but were afraid to remove.
part of Win11 minimum requires were about moving the baseline along a bit. too much perhaps and seemed more like a forced upgrade of hardware.
IIRC most Windows systems come with fast-boot enabled be default. A lot of people turn it off because when Windows acts weird rebooting with fast-boot enabled tends to not clear up the problem. But when turned on it skips a lot of steps that would happen during a normal "cold" boot. It isn't as fast as Modern Standby (because in that case the computer isn't actually off), but it is pretty quick. I'd say cold booting a Windows desktop should be as fast as cold booting a Mac desktop (I don't have a Mac desktop to check).
So what do you guys think of Epic's UE 5.4 terms?
With UE 5.4 they changed the license agreement to use Unreal Engine. I brought it up because Epic was the original subject in this thread and they made a licensing agreement change (similar to Unity) that I was curious to see what folks here thought of it.
Observations from Steven Sinofsky, who had to implement EU regulations for Windows, and how it damages Apple’s brand promise:
Building Under Regulation
Building Under Regulation
sadly you provided nothing worth discussing. just a rant.
hope you feel better now youve taken a breath.
not everyone upgraded to a new PC is the point of my comment.
yes Windows might finally boot faster FOR YOU and other upgraders.
but 10 years ago (on Mac laptops that still work today), Apple had already changed the boot experience to more tablet/phone like.
Microsoft dragged their heels for ages.
Microsoft did as well (InstantGo which has eventually became Modern Standby was released with Windows 8.1), just because few OEMs used it doesn't mean it didn't exist.
By all means - replace your phone with a PlayStation 5 as your daily driver for a month - then come back and say once more that they're totally the same.
The AppStores are, largely, which is what all the “the fees!”, “open it up”, etc anchor on and 85% of my post refers to.
But let’s entertain it, as it’s a good point: “the AppStores are largely the same in concept, but due to the usage given to the device they run on… they should NOT be treated the same”.
Alright, I can roll with that as it makes more sense than “they were sold at a loss”, but it suggests two things:
- AppleTVs, iPads and any future Apple console (if ever) AppStores would never be stripped and opened up. DMA would be blind to it.
- The day a hypothetical Nintendo Switch X or PSPortable Future are even more pocketable and allow to make phone calls, send text and WhatsApp messages, then they should be opened up.
I guess we will know how congruent the whole thing is if that ever happens. We already know the iPad will be targeted along with it.
But at least I’m glad to see some common ground that the e-stores themselves, are indeed the same thing in raw terms.
——
There could be “daily drivers” closed ecosystems examples that wouldn’t pass the swap to a PS5 test (like cars), but continue largely closed to their own brands. But haven’t given it some thought.
Solid post, saw yours after another tongue in cheek one reply I got, but alludes to the same.
This I can agree and roll with way more than “they sell at a loss, poor them” angle I have read so much.
The conclusions of my reply above this one are quite similar (with the general computing you brought up added):
- Nintendo or Sony making a hypothetical more pocketable version of their consoles and giving them features like phone calls, send texts and WhatsApp messages would make it a potential target. (*Especially if they can be and become the only general computer for many).
- An AppleTV, iPad (not quite pocketable, not likely the only daily driver without a phone) and a future Apple console (if ever) would be spared.
Tablets I find are in between, I don’t see anyone having them as the only computer… there’s always a phone somewhere.
This I find a way more coherent angle.
Do you have done citation to back that up? Many can mean anything. I’m sure there are a universe of people who don’t have any other computing device than a phone. Could be a dumb phone, flip phone or smartphone.
It would be important to understand why people mention the "they sell at a loss" argument. It isn't a "poor console manufacturers" argument. It is a "here is one important reason why that matters to the EU" reason. Consoles being sold at a loss is a very relevant difference.
Consoles selling at a loss implies two things:
1) The development of consoles is expected to be largely subsidized by the sale of games.
2) The pricing of those consoles to consumers is kept low because of the expectation of (1).
The reason why this is relevant to the EU is because of what would have to happen if the ability to subsidize console development through game/store sales is taken away. Either:
1) The price of consoles would have to increase to the point where they become prohibitively expensive for EU consumers.
2) One or more console manufacturers would have to pull out of the EU market.
The reality, both 1 and 2 would happen and EU consumers would be far worse off. Considering the EU are mostly democratic governments, creating such a situation would be political suicide.
Even then, I'm not sure I would call them "general purpose" computers just because you could call or text someone. Now, if a Nintendo Switch or Sony PS Vita gained the ability to run a multitude of personal or business apps, connect with banks, download your pay stubs, clock in and out of work, complete service work orders, or edit photographs, then yes, I'd agree that they should have to follow the same rules.
An AppleTV or Apple Console - absolutely would make sense to be exempt. An iPad, however, is still a general purpose computer (even moreso than an iPhone) and would have to follow the same rules.
You don't work in field service. I see many, many people using iPads as their only computer in this industry.
Interesting. How many have other computers and use mobile hotspot? The point is in the context of the thread 85% of the 97% own multiple devices.15% the minority have one internet and computing device. For those people it would seem a locked ecosystem is a benefit rather than a negative.
Fair points.
I can see doctors, crane operators, oil riggers, etc etc using tablets everyday the whole day but I gather they still have a phone in their pockets or back to a phone after finishing work and/or there’s always a phone within reach.
Although I can still see the general computing argument on tablets nevertheless.
But without a phone anywhere? One of the arguments is that phones are in a special place because for many that might be the one and only general computing device.
I can see doctors, crane operators, oil riggers, etc etc using tablets everyday the whole day but I gather they still have a phone in their pockets or back to a phone after finishing work and/or there’s always a phone within reach.
Although I can still see the general computing argument on tablets nevertheless.
I think "one and only" is a bit of a red herring with that argument. In my opinion (which may differ from the EU and from others) is that the difference is simply how the devices are used. A non-cellular iPad and an iPhone would still be treated the same because they are general purpose computers. Either of those could conceivably be the only computing device the one could use, but just the fact that they are general purpose devices in the first place is really the relevant point.
It also depends on what they're doing. I generally see field service people using a tablet which either has its own cellular connection or is paired with some hotspot (sometimes a phone, sometimes a satellite base station). I generally see warehouse people using phones or other special-purpose handhelds for handling inventory management or doing shipping/receiving functions.
field service staff and warehouse staff are task oriented.
they are doing very specific jobs using those tablets and "phones" where portability is the key driver to getting work done. the general public dont do that.
i know one person who doesnt even email on his phone which is his only device.
he has no home internet. he doesnt stream Netflix or music. he doesnt bank. he occasionally Googles and checks IMDB. he is a rare bird.
most of us cant bear to suffer free to air tv anymore and have fast internet with high data limits or unlimited.
and a mix of computers, tablets, phones, streaming devices.
each meets a task required at the time.
And? Photo editors and video editors and music editors and accountants and engineers and data analysts and IT professionals and project managers and animators and call centre employees are all "task oriented" employees as well.
Just because a given person uses a computer for only a small set of tasks doesn't mean the computer itself wasn't designed and isn't marketed to be used for all of those tasks.